Just how extreme is the pro-abortion group NARAL? The organization is now on record opposing a new bill in Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because scientific evidence shows unborn babies feel pain by at least 20 weeks.

Why does NARAL oppose a modest ban on late-term abortions? Its president Ilyse Hogue wraps the opposition in language about womens rights and claims banning late-term abortions will drive up illegal abortions that hurt women. (Never mind that Kermit Gosnell went from the back alley to main street and killed and injured women in legal late-term abortions).

We knew they wouldnt be satisfied banning abortion state by state for very long. Anti-choice zealot Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has just announced that hell be introducing a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks for women nationwide, NARAL complained in an email to its supporters that LifeNews obtained. This is outrageous. Its unconstitutional. It would set womens reproductive rights back by decades. It would put the lives of women who face serious complications later in pregnancy in danger, and it would force women with no other options to seek illegal providers straight out of the 1960s.

The more likely reason for NARAL to oppose the bill is that it gives the pro-abortion organization another chance to fundraise  and destroying the lives of unborn children at or near viability empowers women.

We need to fight this and all attacks on choice with everything weve got. Please make an urgent gift  even just $10  to NARAL Pro-Choice America right away and stand with us on behalf of women across the country. We cant allow this to happen  but we need your help to stop it, NARAL says.

Congressman Trent Franks informed LifeNews that he will advance legislation to provide protection nationwide for unborn children who have the capacity to experience pain while being aborted, a capacity defined in the bill as existing by 20 weeks fetal age.

Franks is the prime sponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The current version of the bill, which garnered a majority vote in the House in 2012, would apply only to the District of Columbia. The congressman told LifeNews today that he intends to revise the bill (H.R. 1797) in committee to cover the entire nation in a bid to prevent more cases like that of Kermit Gosnell. As Chair of the House Judiciarys Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Franks will hold a hearing on the legislation on Thursday.

I know when the subject is related in any way to abortion, the doors of reason and human compassion in our minds and hearts often close, and the humanity of the unborn can no longer be seen. But I pray we can at least come together to agree that we can and should draw the line at the point that these innocent babies can feel the excruciating pain of these brutal procedures, he said.

Franks added: The case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans. However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening hundreds of times per day, every single day, for the past 40 years. Indeed, let us not forget that, had Kermit Gosnell dismembered these babies before they had traveled down the birth canal only moments earlier, he would have, in many places nationwide, been performing an entirely legal procedure. If America truly understands that horrifying reality, hearts and laws will change.

To this end, I have re-introduced the D.C. Pain Capable Unborn Protection Act, which will now be amended to broaden its coverage so that its provisions will apply nationwide, he said. Knowingly subjecting our innocent unborn children to dismemberment in the womb, particularly when they have developed to the point that they can feel excruciating pain every terrible moment leading up to their undeserved deaths, belies everything America was called to be. This is not who we are.

The move to expand the bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide has the strong support of the National Right to Life Committee.

National Right to Life strongly concurs in Congressman Franks decision that the time is ripe to seek protection for pain-capable unborn children nationwide, said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed.

Johnson says that in a nationwide poll of 1,003 registered voters in March, The Polling Company found that 64% would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks  when an unborn baby can feel pain  unless the life of the mother was in danger. Only 30% opposed such legislation.

Johnson added that the federal bill contains legislative findings and operative language very similar to bills already enacted in nine states, beginning in 2010, based on model legislation prepared by NRLC. Like those state laws, Mr. Franks legislation contains findings of fact regarding the medical evidence that unborn children experience pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization (which is 22 weeks in the LMP system, or about the start of the sixth month), and prohibits abortion after that point, except when an acute physical condition endangers the life of the mother.

Some of the extensive evidence that unborn children have the capacity to experience pain, at least by 20 weeks, is available on the NRLC website.

During the 2011-12 Congress, Mr. Franks bill garnered 222 co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and received the support of a majority of House members on July 31, 2012 (roll call no. 539).

NARAL Opposes Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks Nationwide
***Of course they do. And of course, we oppose them. From my home page:

___________________________________________________________________
Ive posted this in a couple of places and it doesnt seem to get much more than a yawn, even though its kinda-sorta an incremental approach.

I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed.
***I do too. That fetus deserves protection extended by the state.

I do wonder if it is biblical to extend full protection to a fetus? I.e. when a man hurts a pregnant woman, hes expected to pay an eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth. But if the unborn baby is killed, the price is not the same.

Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 (or even 4) tiered system of protection.

Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.

Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a right to choose at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening right to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.

With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nations soul.

Just FYI, despite the incoming “it’s a state rights issue” crowd, I will refer such posters to the 14th Amendment and section 5 of said Amendment which gives Congress the authority to effectuate the purposes of the Amendment.

7
posted on 05/20/2013 7:26:07 PM PDT
by Clump
( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)

There are just too many methods available now to know whether or not you are pregnant in a very, very short time. Even three months is too long. If a woman doesn’t want to have children or a guy wants to fool around but never intends to accept the responsibility for a family why don’t they just get something permanent done, like a tubal ligation or vasectomy. I would not even mind having insurance cover those procedures. Much better to do that than to pay for the killing of babies.

9
posted on 05/20/2013 7:33:53 PM PDT
by Grams A
(The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)

It all has to do with fetal testing and the fact that so many women are in uncommitted relationships.

Often times a test with show a fetal abnormality: A cleft lip, a club foot, or an amniocentises will show a high probability of Down’s Syndrome or some other genetic disorder. Instead of allowing the child to be born and taken care of medically. Many people opt for the incredibly selfish approach that if they can’t have a perfect baby, it is better to kill them now. this is just the greedy self centered World in which we live.

In the other cases, many of these women/girls have gotten ‘knocked up’ by a non committed boy friend who decided to leave the relationship only months or weeks after he was told about the child. The child is no longer a means to hold on to the boyfriend, so it becomes disposable. AND if I can’t take care of this child, why should I allow anyone else to care for it.

People are incredibly selfish and evil and our evil throw away society feeds into that. We also have a President and entire national party that not only tolerates abortion, but celebrates it.

12
posted on 05/20/2013 7:58:18 PM PDT
by Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)

I thought they developed a new test for downs syndrome that tested even sooner? I am almost sure because it raised a stink in the pro life world because they said it would lead to a “cure” for downs syndrome when there is no cure only parents aborting the pregnancy.

If we can get every single abortionist investigated, we will see that ALL of them, ALL of them, are like Gosnell. To one degree or another. Gosnell and this new gal are proving scum settles into abortionist positions, and that THEY ARE THE NORM. Not the exception at all.

They are as RARE as abortions are when pro-aborts talk about wanting abortion to be rare (over 1 million a year).

First....it’s not a fetus. The “fetus” is an unborn child. Until we can establish that fact and quit hiding behind nice sounding scientific terms we’re not going to get anywhere with this genocide against the unborn child.

Take out the word abort and substitute murder.....puts a more accurate description of what’s happening.

Until we call “abortion” what it really is...MURDER....this battle for these unborn people will continue to drag on.

I think your conclusion about women not using the murder of the unborn child as birth control is incorrect. Aren’t the majority of these murders committed within the first 6-8 weeks of a pregnancy?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.